Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator. We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.

Even what Xanth just said was making it seem much less messy than it is. It is not if the molecule moves right or left. Think about a single electron, that electron can be anywhere in its cloud, and actually has a low probability of being outside it's cloud. According to the many worlds there is a reality for every single location it possibly can be. This is the same for all particles. So for a single atom, at a single moment, the number of possible realities is beyond comprehension. Now add in all the possible probabilities for all of matter and all of time.

John Titor's model makes it so that he is both correct and incorrect in his predictions. Many worlds says everything that will happen, does in some reality.

I tend to agree with this. I'm not sure if literally everything that is possible occurs (like to the extent of one atom's difference between parallel universes, to infinity), but I think at the very least every individual has the ability to steer his or her own timeline/experience of reality/consciousness. Probably major group consciousness themes are explored in various ways as well, such as if a war did or did not occur, etc.

I actually don't just theorize about this, but practice employing this kind of philosophy in my life. Like any good spiritual work it involves a lot of digging through my subconscious for hidden beliefs and habits of thought, but it seems more effective than any other esoteric system of "magic" or whatever you'd like to call it, that I've tried.

PS, Greytraveller, it's nice to see you here. I remember you from years ago. I checked your profile and we're like twins! XD

Indeed.... there would be a trillion to the trillionth power... brought to the trillionth power again universes.

That isn't necessarily wrong...but it is terrifying even to think the world could be that vast. It is also terrifying, because most of those universes would either be empty, or hells, because for every possible "positive outcome", there are probably dozens of negative possibilities.

What is intuitive doesn't determine what is real. The last 2000 years of science proves that... but the many worlds theory is an uncomfortable one.

The worlds would grow exponentially too. For every decision made there would be a change. It would be a very dynamic system. I think it fits Campbells MBT. Everything is consciousness and that consciousness seeks to grow and expand it's experience then the multiple worlds and timelines would do that. It would decrease entropy in fact it would be the very dynamic opposite of entropy.

The worlds would grow exponentially too. For every decision made there would be a change. It would be a very dynamic system. I think it fits Campbells MBT. Everything is consciousness and that consciousness seeks to grow and expand it's experience then the multiple worlds and timelines would do that. It would decrease entropy in fact it would be the very dynamic opposite of entropy.

This is something that has given me pause before. If the universal mind was seeking to cover all possibilities, this would indeed be a method for doing that. But consider the negative implications again- most of those worlds would be terrible!

George Noory phrased this concern well to me on Coast-to-Coast, a few years back. He reminds that in a good number of them, you might personally be a serial murderer, and in a handful, worse still. And these possibilities would be forced to exist.

This is something that has given me pause before. If the universal mind was seeking to cover all possibilities, this would indeed be a method for doing that. But consider the negative implications again- most of those worlds would be terrible!

George Noory phrased this concern well to me on Coast-to-Coast, a few years back. He reminds that in a good number of them, you might personally be a serial murderer, and in a handful, worse still. And these possibilities would be forced to exist.

Exactly. In a Consciousness system where the "consciousness" is trying to grow/evolve by making Love-based choices... then having ALL choices actually play out goes completely contrary to that particular goal as there is no sum of grow ever. It would essentially be a zero-sum system. The point is that you make a choice and you then have to live with the consequences of that choice in order to evolve as a spiritual being.

Exactly. In a Consciousness system where the "consciousness" is trying to grow/evolve by making Love-based choices... then having ALL choices actually play out goes completely contrary to that particular goal as there is no sum of grow ever. It would essentially be a zero-sum system.

And I'm personally convinced that this is essentially what the totality of existence is: a zero sum system.

I'm all for contributing to the well-being of the whole, but there is no question for me that this is still an obviously dualistic role that I'm performing. If evil didn't exist, we would have no concept of what "good" even means. Same for any form of dualism. You can say someone is a tall person, but that would be totally meaningless if there weren't someone shorter by comparison. You have to have both for either of them to make sense. That's just how it works.

For the universe to contain pairs of opposites like this, it obviously gives no real preference between one or the other. It's by the inherent nature of duality that by creating one side of the coin, you have immediately and automatically created the other side by contrast. So this seems like a pretty zero-sum situation to me.

Then people ask "what is the meaning of life?", but meaning is not something the universe provides people with. Meaning is something people create for themselves. So we are free to experience things as we will.

John made a lot of predictions. And I believe the multiple worlds theory to be very true and accurate. There is a lot of information on John that you will no longer come across. Be aware that a lot of the information you will find now has actually been altered. I remember looking into thhis years ago, and looking at the information that is left on the internet about the man, has been edited and is not a perfectly accurate representation of everything posted in 2000 and 2001. Take everything you read about the man with a grain of salt. The closest you will ever get to the truth is if you had a chance to talk to John in 2000 and 2001, and if you happen to have contact with his close associate, Pamela. I have not seen her online recently.

That isn't necessarily wrong...but it is terrifying even to think the world could be that vast. It is also terrifying, because most of those universes would either be empty, or hells, because for every possible "positive outcome", there are probably dozens of negative possibilities.

My question would be, who would it be terrifying for? The idea could be terrifying for you but those realities themselves could only be terrifying to you if you experienced them, and as humans I don't know if we can experience them all at once. Just one at a time it seems. And some people do experience terrifying realities, and some don't. The totality of existence, whether it's called God or the source or whatever, probably experiences consciousness in a radically different way than human beings do. And why not? We're just a small piece of the puzzle.

I had an intense spiritual experience once where I realized that the source must contain not only infinite joy, but also infinite sadness, infinite anger, etc. If it didn't, then how could these feelings exist? I couldn't dwell on it for very long because it made me feel that incredible depression. Everything is part of the totality. So it is a very sobering thought, but the most incredibly depressed feeling you can possibly imagine is also part of the sum total of reality, and that's just how things are, just the same as joy or whatever else you can experience. It's just there and it's something consciousness has to deal with, whether in the form of individual incarnations or whatever the case may be.

My question would be, who would it be terrifying for? The idea could be terrifying for you but those realities themselves could only be terrifying to you if you experienced them, and as humans I don't know if we can experience them all at once. Just one at a time it seems. And some people do experience terrifying realities, and some don't. The totality of existence, whether it's called God or the source or whatever, probably experiences consciousness in a radically different way than human beings do. And why not? We're just a small piece of the puzzle.

It is terrifying to me because the suffering of other beings matters to me immensely. And to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.

Consider when you are driving a car, for instance, down a city street. Most of the possible actions you have available to you to take will produce a very negative outcome. You could swerve off right, could swerve off left, could ride your car on the sidewalk, etc. Only a very narrow set of choices will see you producing what really amounts to a modestly neutral goal- getting your vehicle from A to B without catastrophe. There are far more ways you could have caused disasters on that trip. When you drive a car, I don't think the sum of possibilities is zero, but starkly negative. There isn't really a set of fantastic positive wonder events that may also happen that outweigh the 95% plus of possible outcomes that are terrible.

The car example also isn't unique. What saves our world from being so terrible is that negative choices are given weight in our minds, such that we are much less likely to choose them. But if every possibility plays out somewhere, the probability safety is no longer there.

In our lives we are threading a needle. We are hand-selecting what we perceive to be the best possible outcomes for ourselves, and hopefully others. I don't think humans know completely what is best, but I think we likely choose well more than poorly, at least on the individual level.

PS, Greytraveller, it's nice to see you here. I remember you from years ago. I checked your profile and we're like twins! XD

Yes, indeed ! BTW you will probably pass me in posts soon. I do not post here much, except in exceptional threads such as this one.

Stillwater you wrote,

Quote

And to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.

Another Very good argument against the Many Worlds Theory - the concept that entire 3 dimensional alternate universes are created all the time. Instead of myriads of negative alternate universes that are always manifested by driving a car along a city street there are myriads of latent negative 1 dimensional timelines and 2 dimensional time planes. These myriads of negative timelines and time planes would most likely never manifest in this (or any other) universe. Occasionally bad events Do occur - in this example a traffic accident. But mostly these timelines are only latent 'what-ifs" . These alternate 1 dimensional "what-if timelines will be remembered as 'close calls' by a driver. Or these timelines can be viewed by dreamers, remote viewers and OBEers.

It is terrifying to me because the suffering of other beings matters to me immensely. And to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.

I would say that presents a good reflection of your own beliefs about reality. Out of infinite possibilities why should the sum total of them all be so much more negative than positive or neutral? Does that say something about the way that you are interpreting reality as a whole, that it is more bad than good? I know Buddhism puts heavy emphasis on suffering as the basic human condition and trying to escape that, but other traditions like Taoism or even Zen Buddhism don't take things that far. It's almost like a glass half empty/glass half full situation here, where you can look at this idea and see a reflection of yourself in a certain way.

Quote

Consider when you are driving a car, for instance, down a city street. Most of the possible actions you have available to you to take will produce a very negative outcome. You could swerve off right, could swerve off left, could ride your car on the sidewalk, etc. Only a very narrow set of choices will see you producing what really amounts to a modestly neutral goal- getting your vehicle from A to B without catastrophe.

Did you stop to consider the number of good things that could happen in such depth? Even if you run over something and have a serious tire/wheel problem develop, maybe you'll get more insurance money to repair it than it actually costs, and come out a few hundred dollars on top. Maybe you'll turn your radio to a different station, to a talk radio show, and hear some mind-blowing idea that causes important changes in your life. Maybe you'll see someone that needs help on the side of the road, stop and help and change someone else's life.

Anyway, who picks what's positive and negative? That's a whole subject unto itself. Here's an old Taoist story I like:

Quote

Maybe

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

Out of infinite possibilities why should the sum total of them all be so much more negative than positive or neutral?

On the whole, the world would be staggeringly neutral, as likely greater than 99.9999% of worlds would not be able to sustain living creatures, at least how we know them physically. The staggeringly negative aspect would be the inhabited worlds. With the Buddhist reference, it must be noted that Siddhartha felt this particular world was defined by suffering. Most of the possible worlds inhabited by life would likely be far more negative than this one, under the multiple worlds hypothesis.

Some Judeochristian theologians define their concept of hell as merely randomness. The thought there is that an environment in which healthy beings can flourish in peace is hard to construct, and that it doesn't take malice, but merely dis-interest (random chance) for beings to suffer greatly. This view is reflected in the fact that the word "chaos" most closely means "mere randomness".

Quote

Even if you run over something and have a serious tire/wheel problem develop, maybe you'll get more insurance money to repair it than it actually costs, and come out a few hundred dollars on top.

Yeah, there is quite a lot of interpretation in that area. Going by the Buddhist worldview we have been running with in this discussion though, the careless taking of life is seen as strongly negative in all forms of Buddhism I am aware of. The eightfold path is strongly concerned with avoiding all forms of harm, and being mindful of mental states. We have to remember that the multiple worlds hypothesis is taking every possible outcome, regardless of how likely a person is to take them in a normal setting. Consider again, what would happen if you took a random action every time you were given a choice, over a 2 minute period of driving the car... most of the possible outcomes would end up with multiple people dead, or at the very least, a crashed or inoperative vehicle. I understand that both positive and negative things can happen while you are driving, but the human world (cars included) functions by the assumption that people will choose very specific alternatives when given the choice, and that humans are thus very predictable. Despite the fact that nearly 100% of the possible outcomes in driving a car are catastrophic, humans can be counted on to know how to continually choose the right ones most of the time.

Put a different way, say for instance you came to two open doors, and one of them led to a hallway, and the other a bottomless pit. Humans can be counted on to choose the hallway greater than 99% of the time. But given the multiple worlds theory, the outcomes would be chosen at equal rates, because probabilities like that are ignored, and every outcome is explored.

Quote

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

Yeah, that is from the Zhuangzi... I think my favorite Zhungzi passages are the ones about the twisted tree down by the "nothing at all" village, and the gourd raft. What a "mind full of underbrush" we all have, hehe.

Yeah, there is quite a lot of interpretation in that area. Going by the Buddhist worldview we have been running with in this discussion though, the careless taking of life is seen as strongly negative in all forms of Buddhism I am aware of.

I don't condone any taking of life either, but if I had to pick some popular worldview to summarize my own thoughts on morality or good/evil it would be Taoism, and/or the baby it made with Buddhism, Zen Buddhism.

But I also don't necessarily believe that everyone would have to fall into the bottomless pit, in your example, for all things to be explored. I think more than a kind of impersonal, purely rational/scientific kind of "exploration of all possibilities," we might have something more like each "oversoul" gets to decide what it explores in each of its physical incarnations, and some things simply may not be useful for these oversouls to explore to get what they want.

I think this also relates to our personal journeys in life. If we are able to accept something 100% and are at peace with it, then that something will tend not to trouble us anymore. We've explored what we needed to and there's no use in taking it any further.

Thats a good point it would be impossible. The question is then, if the universe exists only on one timeline, why is hard to predict the future accurately using psychic means. The present and past can be described in detail accurately. Even a beginner in RV like me, I've had 5 targets so far and missed one. I only had a number for those targets. In that time I've had 2 precogative impressions that panned out the rest did not. It's almost an inverse relationship. The question that's important is how and why does the universe work in such a way that describing the future accurately in a blind target is inaccurate; and describing the past and present on a blind target is highly accurate. Time should not make any difference since everything stems from one source and accessing that source is the reason why we have the ability to describe things we have no sensory input on.

To me, why you can't predict the future with any certainty is related to the concept that this is a probabilistic reality. While the past has been set, and the present (now) is being set... the choices made in the present effect the probability of other options happening.

This is also what supports the concept of "Intent" being used to modify the future probability of an action taking place. Predicting that action and modifying the probability of that action happening are two separate things.

That theory does not explain how the predictions can be improved in accuracy using future outbounder ( name of the method) someone does the reading blind ( doesn't know what they're reading) then the person who is picking the target picks a target and the date after the reading is done and sealed. For the experiments this was done double blind, that is a third person was present to assign numbers to the target. The moderator then randomly chose the number not knowing what the number represented or what the reader had given. This is more accurate, not perfect but closer to the 60-80% mark of ideal reading. Ingo Swan I think it was him or someone else used this to win pick 3 several times in a row. . Lyn Buchanan talks about it on Utube I think.

Anyway the change in randomness should not occur according to that theory. It has to be re evaluated. It's probably something minor that would explain it. I think Campbells presentation and the theories he likes are sound. ( he uses several theories as a combination for the big TOE)

That is hard to know. The most literal meaning of "Sound" would mean the theories he likes are true.

"Sound" literally means that the formal logic argument structure is accepted, and the premises are known to be true. This means the conclusions are forced to be true (the theory must be true to be sound).

But yeah, I know what you mean here. When he tries an idea on, it is generally more than half-baked, and he provides reasons.

I'm not saying the theory is a bad one. The discovery of this method was after My big TOE was written. Publishing can lag a year or more behind the writing of a book. So it's not Campbells fault for not knowing something that had not yet been discovered. But since then, this method has been experimented with successfully in the remote viewing community and it applies to any form of psychic inquiry, ERV is one of the branch techniques so it includes astral projection.

It creates an issue with the theory of how timelines work. 2 points equals a line. We have not experimented with it using three or more points as yet. I"m not sure how that would work out, perhaps serial outbounders or something like that. Campbells idea still works to a degree but I don't think it accounts for the huge jump in accuracy adequately. So I think it's missing a component.

what does it mean if it didn't? Are the unfulfilled predictions indications of variance in time streams or is it an indication of a hoax. What is the most common assumption and is that assumption correct?

Exactly. There could be a pink surfboard up in a tree next to where I live right now. Who's to tell? Anything can be true. Thing is that Titor's predictions did not come true. That they could be true in some parallel universe that eventually might exist is completely irrelevant. Could be that Titor is wrong about this supposed parallel universe, and in fact, Elvis is instead alive and well therein wearing Hawaii shorts. Who's to tell? Even if parallel universes exist, his predictions therefore lack explanatory power, as we say in the history department.

The kind of predictions that Titor made, the collapse of civilization, the US breaking up into competing and warring factions etc, were a staple of early 00's American dystopia fantasy. Still are, in fact. There was simply nothing unique about them that couldn't have been dreamt up by anybody's nobody since the 80's. And they turned out to be unfounded. Ergo, the simplest explanation: the guy made it up himself.

Remember, it's not just whether a choice was made or not... any change in this reality, whether it be a molecule moved left instead of right would ALSO create an entire universe to split.

When you take that into consideration, it then becomes beyond stupid what would be required for this kind of system to exist.

And when you take into consideration that the single reason behind the many worlds theory in the first place was to find an explanation to the collapse of the wave function that was consistent with both the received wisdom on quantum mechanics and maintaining a strictly materialist world view, i.e. leaving out any 'spiritual forces' causing collapse, then the intellectual meltdown becomes complete. In other words, anything, no matter how far-fetched or complex, to defend materialism and deny the possibility of an afterlife.

One of the biggest advocates of the many worlds theory is my fellow countryman, Max Tegmark. I'm sorry, but I regard this person as a very smart, mathematically brilliant, highly intelligent idiot.